07-08-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the following: 1.The variance request to allow encroachment of the base of the hill to within 26* of the wetland be denied. Section 10.S5, Subdivision 8 of the zoning ordinance prohibits any land alteration within a wetland and within 26* of wetlands. A variance requires a hardship and no hardship is justified in this case. The additional fill located within the 26* setback was done to extend the base of hill and there is no unique situation that exists that should require an encroachment into the setback. * Additionally, any approval of a variance to permit land alteration to occur within 26* of a wetland without demonstrating a hardship would be precedent setting. 2.The portion of the after-the-fact permit for the existing grades is not consistent with the City ’s general recommendation that newly created slopes not be less than a 3:1 slope. The point on the property where the flat area of the back yard begins to slope is less thuu a 3:1 slope and should be corrected. The original plan to fill the back yard was to make the back yard safe by eliminating the steep drop only 30* from the back of the house. The fill changed the slope of the back yard from a very steep drop to a gradual slope. The existing grades have extended the back yard an additional38. This is very clear on the illustration attached as Exhibit C. You can see how the proposed plan would eliminate the very steep slope, but not extend the yard. Staff is not opposed to this change in the plan, however the grades should be changed to not be less than a 3:1 slope and remove the base of the hill from the 26* wetland setback. 3.Staff has requested the Mr. Stephenson have the adjacent property owners join him in this application since the request is to allow the land alteration beyond the property lines. The legal notice was mailed including those two properties as part of the new application. Both property owners have not yet consented to the plan. If there is no official consent received by the City the fill should be removed from those two properties immediately and the property be regraded to match the plan approved in November, 2001. If the neighbors do consent, the grades will have to be confirmed that they do not exceed 3:1 and the City Engineer shall approve the plan from an engineering perspective. Staff placed this item on the Planning Commission agenda for June to avoid any delay in resolving this matter. The survey indicating the finished grades was not delivered to our office until June lO***. Knowing the issues relating to the finished grades, the property owner did seed the hillside and plant some trees. If the grades have to be changed to be in compliance with the previous plan, or to reflect a change to the grades based on the excessive slope, it may require the hill to be reseeded and replanted. 102-2793 RevU Siephemon m 1(50 Fox Rk)|C Road Page3of4 •a . . y-